236 replies to this topic

[the L]

Doug1o29, on 27 September 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

We have the evidence of one species evolving into another into another into another.

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

[Mr. Miyagi]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

Look at my last post L.

[Doug1o29]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

I'm not sure of that.  We (you and I, if we're of European or Oriental descent) carry genes inherited from Neanderthals.  The complement is roughly equivalent to what you got from your great-grandfather - in other words, it's small.  But these look like something we picked up along the way.

"Anatomically modern humans" evolved from "archaic humans."  Both were Homo sapiens.  This is not about one species evolving into another one, but about relatively minor changes within a single species.  So at this point, I'm going to have to ask you to re-state your proposal.  Just how many more fossils do you want before you are ready to say the gap has been filled?
Doug

[the L]

Dont get me wrong guys. Im not saying anything except that I dont get it how some scientists claim that we dont have direct ancestor of humans.
I search and didnt found transition bones between h.h. and h.s.s.
If one knows better...the stage is all yours.

[Mr. Miyagi]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Dont get me wrong guys. Im not saying anything except that I dont get it how some scientists claim that we dont have direct ancestor of humans.
I search and didnt found transition bones between h.h. and h.s.s.
If one knows better...the stage is all yours.

Again, read my post. lol

[the L]

Mr. Miyagi, on 27 September 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

Again, read my post. lol

I did Miyagi. But I didnt notice bones there.

[Mr. Miyagi]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

I did Miyagi. But I didnt notice bones there.

And I explained why we may never have that discovery or at least recognize it as such. The same reason why you cannot tell exactly when red changes to orange on  the spectrum?

[the L]

Mr. Miyagi, on 27 September 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

And I explained why we may never have that discovery or at least recognize it as such. The same reason why you cannot tell exactly when red changes to orange on  the spectrum?

[Mr. Miyagi]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Reply to my post and tell me what exactly you do not understand and we can work through this. When you reply in such a manner as you've done here, how can you expect a discussion to occur?

Edited by Mr. Miyagi, 27 September 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Hasina]

There's not some magical fossil that's going to have the head of a human and the body of it's ancestor. If you took a static image of each generation of creature (if you could) and then played those real fast on a TV, they'd 'morph' slowly shifting into homo sapien, and if you kept doing that today and then into the future, who knows?

[Copasetic]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

L, Please go to my about me page and check out the first 2 links under "commonly addressed creationist claims". The one on tranisitional organisms/fossils and JBL on species concepts. You also might find the link "An ode to clowns" helpful as well.

[Urisk]

I just can't help but feel that if you deny evolution then surely you have to deny dog breeds? How about plant cultivars? Granted these are on a scale far smaller and faster compared to natural evolution but the principle is the same. An outside force shapes the "breed" through generations of breeding.
The point is, and I believe this to be the main pint of confusion, is that animals do not change fit a specific environment (like it's some premeditated exercise) they are changed by the environment. For every rabbit that is physically and genetically faster, more agile and more adept at smelling out the predator, many more will be taken. Or how about how people living in colder climates (eg  Eskimo, Sami etc) tend to be quite squat and of stocky build, while African people, and those living in hotter, dryer climes temd to be slightly taller, lithe and thin? Coincidence? Try swapping one person from each area and see how they'd get on.


Case point of natural selection: the peppered moth

http://www.mothscoun..._selection.html

It's so straightforward and obvious. Is it not?  If it's not, you haven't read it, or you're choosing to blanket it out because it doesn't "fit".

Every animal is currently at a potential "transitional" stage, as our environment shapes us. We should leave the crack-pot ideas of what evolution is in the Pokemon games.

Edited by Urisk, 01 October 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[itsnotoutthere]

the L, on 27 September 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

But we dont have for todays anatomicly human.

That is simply because we don't have anywhere near a complete fossil record of every species. For a animal bones to become fossilized, a very specific set of circumstances have to be in place. We only have a fraction or more like a fraction of a fraction of the fossil record of all the species that have walked the earth.
Most creatures that die in the wild are eaten by all the other wild animals around them, think about it. otherwise the plains of Africa would be knee deep in old bones.
It is absolutely no surprise at all that there is no 'missing link' found in the fossil records of man...no mystery what so ever.

[BaalZebul Nehebkau]

hey OP, I saw your avatar and immediately I thought of this guy (Ogre from Tekken)

anyone else with me?

[the L]

BaalZebul Nehebkau, on 04 October 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

hey OP, I saw your avatar and immediately I thought of this guy (Ogre from Tekken)

anyone else with me?

Its Etruscan.